Linux-Advocacy Digest #562, Volume #33 Thu, 12 Apr 01 21:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Has Linux anything to offer ? (Rex Ballard)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Rex Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Has Linux anything to offer ?
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 00:35:20 GMT
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
==============42ECF1910A505C3F717A5C96
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
"roger$@a" wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rex says...
>
> > If you are a student who
> >would like to learn the principles of UNIX, if you are the secretary
> >of a non-profit and want
> >to put up a web-site, or if you just want to chat and e-mail, Linux
> >has some
> >really great tools to do this.
> >
>
> The problem is that on Linux, there is no consistant and coherant way
> with how applications work. One can't cut/paste from one app to
> another like on windows. Application quality in general are less of
> those that exist on widnows.
>
> Let take some examples:
>
> 1. Using IE 6.0 beta, If I am on a web page, and do 'save', IE is
> smart enough not only to save the HTML page itself, but also to
> create a subdirectory with all the gif files on that page. This means
> when one views the locally saved HTML page later on, it comes up with
> all the images intact on it. There is nothing like this on Linux.
Actually, this is largely a function of which development language is
used.
Many of the object oriented languages such as Python and TCL have the
same
object oriented methods. You simply call the "save" method and each
object
will save itself in the appropriate way.
Keep in mind that in Windows, you must compile the entire executable
into
a single run-time executable. With Windows 2000, you can create out
of
process dcom objects, but you still have to compile the final product.
In Linux, you typically get a program which simply ties together a
bunch
of widgets using a script interpreter like PERL, Python, or TCL.
These
in turn can invoke commands that can be started with a CLI, but are
started
with the GUI interface.
> 2. On windows, I can drag an image from my Visio document to my word
> document and have it show up there. There is nothing like this on linux.
In frame-maker, which preceded word's OLE by almost a year, you could
simply create a "frame", and insert the display from any executable
into
that frame. If you wanted to bundle the resulting file, you could use
a utility such as "ar" or "tar". These could be combined with
"compress"
and "crypt" if you wanted additional compression and/or security.
With Word, you save documents in a proprietary format, you MUST use
word
to open word files, you have no formally recognized way to extract the
various components, and you have no way to transform content from one
useful
form to another (word table into excel spreadsheet) without using a
custom
application which has the OLE controls for both components built into
the
executable.
Keep in mind, that when MS-DOS was allocating 32 kbytes for a 20 byte
text
file, it made sense to always store everything together.
In UNIX/Linux, the component files are stored in standard containers,
and you can extract the component file from the container, create a
frame,
and have the application component display the component file from
within
the frame. The good news is that if you decide that you prefer a
different
charting package, you can use the new charting tool with the original
component
file, and if the script is editable, you can package the new
presentation by
changing just a few lines of scripts.
If you really want, you can also compile components together, but even
then
these components are written to comply with ICCCM, which is the
standard
used for all X11 components to assure that everything runs on
different
servers and window managers.
> 3. On Windows, when one starts a CD writes, the writes software
> automatically scans scsi and ide devices and locates the CD-W device.
> On linux, one must compile the kernel and do other hacks to get this
> to work.
Linux has the ability to load many modules automatically. Others can
be loaded "on demand", and others can be loaded explicitly. In the
very early days, all drivers had to be compiled into the kernel.
Today,
only the core module probing components are included by default. Many
distributions such as SuSE 7.1 and Mandrake 7.2 have built-ins to
probe
USB, SCSI, and EPP/ECP ports as well as PCMCIA and PCI.
> 4. On linux, each distro has it own way interface and methods of how
> to configure and update the system. On widnows there is one way.
This is a double edged sword. Windows uses it's own installation
procedures
to install the operating system. Then additional applications must be
installed
using Install-shield. On the other hand, have you ever tried to
UNINSTALL
a piece of software?
And what about the impact that an upgrade of Office might have on
Netscape
or Lotus Notes. Microsoft is pretty good at managing their own
products,
but their attitude toward third party applications ranges from
negligent
to criminally willful sabotage. Court-room examples include stacker,
DR-DOS, OS/2, and Cyrix686 chips.
Linux uses one of three standard package managers, and these package
managers manage dependencies, installation, and uninstallation.
You can override dependency checking, but it's not recommended.
There are a number of different GUI front-ends to these package
managers.
This represents a balance between wanting to create a "pretty" user
interface, and wanting something simple, reliable, and fast.
> 5. On linux, it is still very hard to get a system working using
> anti-aliased fonts, without more user hacks and configurations. On
> windows, it comes build in and the user has to do nothing more.
Recent Mandrake and SuSE distributions simply don't install the ugly
fonts.
In most cases, the worst problem will be that you get some warning
messages
because the X-11 font server has chosen the closest equivalent.
> 6. Printing on Linux is broke. On widnows, setting up a printer requires
> no hacks as on linux. It just works.
This has been a problem. Cups has vastly improved the situation.
Keep
in mind that Linux applications typically print to postscript format
in much the same way that Windows prints to its proprietary format.
This
means that you only have to translate from one format to get
pretty-print
on your printer.
There are a few versions of Ghostscript for Windows, which can be used
if you move from location to location. Alternatively, you can
configure
CUPS for the different printers. Some printers, especially USB
printers
refuse to provide any information required to support Linux printer
filters.
They could provide a binary at the web site, a filter driver for
ghostscript,
or enough technical specifications (media protocol) to support an open
source
development team. On the other hand, some of these printers may be
protected
by contracts with Microsoft.
If the printer isn't marked as Linux compatible on the box, you're "at
risk".
If the printer isn't listed in the compatibility lists of the various
Linux
sites, you're at risk. Linux supports many printers ranging from low
end
dot-matrix and ink jets to high speed laser printers.
Some of the applications also support specific printers through the
"raw"
interface, if you chose.
Linux actually gives you 3 printers. This is because Linux uses
filters
to transform print format from one type to another. You have the
"raw"
printer which has no translation. You have the "text" printer, which
has
the ability to put text into the raw printer (usually just a matter of
resetting the printer), and the postscript printer (ghostscript
actually).
Normally, people choose not to pay the higher price for postscript
printers
because they don't want the slower speed. Linux can turn even a $90
ink-jet
printer into a very respectable ghostscript printer.
Linux applications put out content that adheres to the ghostscript
standard.
You can usually offer a postscript printer via the web, but some
applications
may require access to the "raw" printer (since they will be sending
PCL or
whatever directly).
You can also add filters for things like troff and nroff, but most
people
just pipe the in-line command into the lpr stream.
> 7. On Linux, there are many different desktop environments, each work
> differently. Applications written for one, might not work as expected
> on another. On windows, there is one way to do it, making developer life
> much simpler and users are familiar with how GUI applications are expected
> to behave.
Actually, it's more like telephones made to adhere to the modular
jack. You can get all sorts of different phones, including answering
machines, caller ID, speakerphones, cordless phones, modems, or even
the classic Bell Rotary. Because the telephone companies have adopted
some nearly universal standards for this type of phone, anyone can
"plug in"
to any standard jack using any number of standard devices.
Linux components adhere to a standard called ICCCM. You rarely have
to
worry about it, unless you are creating your own "widget" (a bit like
creating your own modem from transistors and hand wound transformer
coils).
All of the KDE, Gnome, Qt, and TK components can operate on any of the
window managers.
In addition, the components can also be connected at the CORBA level.
Both KDE and Gnome use CORBA to interconnect the components and both
have the capability to cross-connect. Normally, you don't need to
get down to this level, but if you have a server object written for
one interface and you really need the other interface, you can use it.
CORBA is very similar to DCOM at the client/server level.
> >PERL, Python, PHP, and other scripting languages, combined with KDE
> >and GNOME components have made it very easy to obtain programs that
> >can be packaged quite creatively.
> PERL, python, PHP all exist on windows.
Absolutely! And if you want to write applications that can be quickly
moved around, these tools are highly recommended. You might also want
to set up your workstation with an Apache Server as well, so that you
can take advantage of all the CPAN tools. In addition the qt and GTK
tool kits support both Windows and Linux (and other versions of UNIX).
There is a price for qt, and it isn't cheap, but if you want a
consistent
interface on all platforms, it's worth a modest investment. The
registration fee kicks in when you distribute software commercially
or consult professionally, but you get the added benefit of direct
support and access to trolltech consulting services.
> >> Are CD-R and CD-RW easier to configure and use with Linux?
> >
>
> >This depends or your system. Linux sports multiple "toasters", and
> >the set-up for the read-write is a bit more involved. On the other
> >hand, the EZ-CD Creator
> >used on most Windows CD-ROM burners costs over $100 retail.
> >
>
> CD writer devices come with a FREE cdwrites software packages
> with it in the box, (for windows of course).
I've had to purchase the windows version one two many times to fall
for
that. I had to buy one copy when I was on the road and my hard drive
crashed. I had to buy another copy when I upgraded to Windows 2000.
The good news was that there were some very nice additional utilities.
The Linux toaster has some advantages for a number of "real-world"
applications.
You can use Linux tools to perform back-ups of entire partitions and
save them
in CD-size chunks. You can also manage file-systems. Unfortunately,
Linux
is terrible if you want to pirate Windows, since the cloned drive will
have
exactly the same registry as the original machine. If the ONLY thing
that
changes is the hard drive, it's not a problem, but if you also have a
new
computer running underneath - well, let's say it's about like moving
your old
hard drive to a new machine with different cards - forget plug-n-play.
> >> Is the support for Display Cards, DVD, Sound Cards, Large Hard Drives and
> >> Printers better?
>
> >
> >For the products that advertise Linux compatibility, the support is
> >usually
> >quite good.
>
> There is no commerical DVD player for linux. What is there is
> mostly hacks that does not support half of what a commercial
> DVD players on widnows support.
This is a legal issue. The RIAA has only endorsed a Microsoft binary
for
DE-CSS decryption. Supposedly no one was supposed to know how to
crack
the encryption because it was a trade secret. The problem was that
the decryption was very thin (24 bit DES I think), and you had a list
of over 100 possible test keys to figure out if you had a good crypt.
Originally, each play would be given only one crypt key, and would
have
to test against only one test value. It was a weak encryption (like
Clipper chip?), but nobody would talk - right?
Unfortunately, not only did word get out, but the lawyers for the
RIAA submitted the source code without requesting that it be sealed,
putting the DECSS decoder for Linux into public domain.
When DVD-CSS first came out, it was very obvious that the Linux
community
would create a driver, and that driver would probably be published
under
an open source license. Furthermore, if the developers were in a
country
that didn't honor the trade-secrets act, only the expression would be
protected under copyright law. Ironically, it may turn out that the
encryption used by Microsoft was actually based on an Open Source
implementation of DES.
I would like to see the RIAA release it's own version of both MP3 and
DE-CSS which would include a GPL style license, but would require that
the "auditing" features not be disabled. This would be enforceable,
effective,
and make it possible to collect revenues, control distribution, and
make sure that content producers are properly compensated.
I did obtain a copy of DECSS, but I attached an addendum to the
license
which reminded the user that copyright violation was a crime
punishable
by up to 5 years in prison and up to a $250,000 fine, and that anyone
using the driver would be obligated to report anyone using it to
engage
in copyright violations.
I still don't make it available on my web sight, but I did this as
insurance
against anyone who might try cracking my home server.
Keep in mind that these are legal issues and have nothing to do with
the capabilities of Linux.
> >Some people like it because they like having the power and stability
> >of a UNIX system.
>
> win2k is VERY stable. The stability claim is getting too old now.
> need to find a new one.
Actually, I've been watching a number of people send their machines
back for "re-engineering". The good news is that you almost never
see a "blue screen of death". The bad news is that if you do, it's
probably too late to do anything but reformat the hard drive.
Windows 2000 is very stable. It's the best OS Microsoft has released
at this point. Unfortunately, Microsoft wants to charge far too much
to both the OEMS and the Corporate users. Furthermore, while
Microsoft
software works quite well on 2K, much of the 3rd party software has to
be rewritten just to get it working properly, and even more
re-engineering
is required to exploit the reliability features such as MTS and MSMQ.
The big problem right now is that Windows 2000 has a problem with
standards.
Microsoft routinely changes standards every two years and began
announcing
".Net" and a whole new suite of standards even before ME was released.
Win2K has some good security, but it's non-standard which means that
you
have to manage at LEAST two security systems if you have mainframes or
UNIX systems. Ironically, Linux provides a better single sign-on
solution
(using "kosher" LDAP/Kerberos and SAMBA/WNS). It takes a while to set
up,
but the long-term reward is worth a bit of short-term hacking.
Microsoft has resisted all of the UNIX standards, and meanwhile, IBM
has
literally put Linux into the Mainframe. The Internet is/was based on
UNIX standards, and every attempt by Microsoft to introduce it's own
proprietary extensions has resulted in security holes,
> In summary:
> -----------
> The Linux KERNEL is good. No one can argue about that. But to have
> an OS for the end user has nothing to do with the KERNEL. The
> main problem with Linux as and end user, is that there is no overall
> guiding strategy and design to drive it.
This sounds like you've been listening to Microsoft too long. Sure,
Microsoft believes that the only way to make computers workable is
to put ALL information technology under Microsoft's direct control.
Steve Balmer put it very tersely - "with 200 million users, WE IS the
Standard". This of course was referring to the 200 million Windows
3.1
users who's machines were about to be rendered "obsolete" by Windows
95.
Ironically, Linux/WINE has been better at adhering to the Windows 95
standard
than NT 4.0, 98, ME, or 2K. And Microsoft says that XP will have a
"compatibility" mode with prior versions of Windows. It almost sounds
like
Microsoft will be selling UNIX, but with the usual Microsoft centric
non-disclosure protected, back-doors-for-audit/spy purposes,
"extensions"
that made everybody love ActiveX, VBS Outlook auto-open attachments,
and
the Melissa, Iloveyou, Resume, and Internet Exploder viruses which
have
now tallied up damages in excess of $500/user or over $48 billion in
damages and lost time - due to holes that Microsoft had claimed to
have
plugged.
Yes, Linux get's hacked too. In 99% of the cases, it's a denial of
service
attack designed to make the server inaccessible. The remaining 1% in
which
the user gets unrestricted access to the machine usually involve
exploiting
uninitialized certificate servers and either rhosts files or root/root
userid/passwords.
The general rule in Linux is "don't go to the net as root". And there
are
tools that eliminate the need to use root as your primary login.
Still,
some people don't pay attention, and some people stand on the top "not
a step"
of the ladder too.
> Each linux group decide to make
> something as they please, a new Linux flavour is out each month.
Actually, there are a number of standards bodies who create common
ground
for nearly all of these groups. W3C, OMG, X-Consortium, Posix, and
IETF,
among others have the task of tracking and coordinating innovation,
balancing
Open Source infrastructure with proprietary commercial
specialization. By
separating the infrastructure and the "business rules", you have some
very nice combinations of choice and interoperability.
When you go to a buy a car, do you worry that the Honda Civic won't be
able to use the same road as the Lincoln Town Car? Do you worry that
the Steering will work the wrong way? Do you worry about whether
you'll
be able to get fuel? Do you worry about whether your radio will give
you japanese radio stations because it's a Nissan? Of course not!
And why is this? It's because there are thousands of standards that
include both regulatory requirements and
> We now have 75 Linux distro and counting.
75, from 75 different companies? OR is does that include all
versions,
options, and companies.
> No standard way to do anything.
Actually, there are numerous standards, and they are implemented in
GPL source
code. This eliminates the need for huge consortiums who push their
own agenda
in hopes of getting their proprietary infrastructure adopted as
compulsory
software. The OSI tried this approach for a while. They couldn't
compete
with the IETF and Open Source.
> From application installation to printer setup to configuring the network.
Actually, the underlying standards are very consistent. The actual
control
files are in the /etc and /usr/lib/X11/app-defaults directories. The
repository
is fed from these text files.
You have the choice. You can edit them yourself with vi, or you can
use
one of the nice friendly GUI tools. Some people LOVE Linuxconf,
others
prefer Mandrake's DrakConf. Generally, a novice user only needs some
cute little push-buttons and drop-downs. The implementation of the
buttons
is more a matter of aesthetics, artistic expression, and striking a
balance
between "eye candy" such as 16 million color backgrounds and icons,
and
performance of core functionality. Slackware is uglier than sin, but
it's
very fast on very tiny machines. TWM is the ugliest window manager in
the X11 suite, but you can run it on a monochrome monitor, with 4 meg
of RAM,
and a 40 meg hard drive. KDE is obscenely friendly, and can be
gloriously
artistic, but it can make a 1 ghz pentium IV seem slow.
My presentation needs for a PDA are much less extreme than my needs
for
a laptop used to make sales presentations, or a desktop used to code
applications, or a workstation used to handle customer service calls.
If you're trying to monitor 2000 real-time telemetry instruments or
network
components, you probably don't want 32 bit color slowing you down. On
the
other hand, if you're preparing glossies for the annual report, you
might
want true 32 bit color and software that assures that the color you
see on
the screen is what you'll get on the page.
> It is like being in the kitchen with 20 cooks making one big dinner. Each
> want to do the dinner their own way.
Out west we call that "pot luck". Everybody brings a dish, usually a
specialty they are proud of. There's usually someone who coordinates
to make sure that you don't get 50 pies and only 1 small bowl of
salad.
If you've never been to a pot-luck, you should really try it. I love
the Texas pot-lucks because you get an incredible variety of options,
and everything is fabulous. Sometimes it takes two trips to sample
everything.
> Unless this is fundemantly changed, linux will never compete with windows
> on the desktop. windows still claims 90% of the desktop.
> The reason is simple. It is simple to use and consistant in the way it works.
Actually, the reason is even simpler than that. Microsoft has
contracts
with nearly every OEM that obligates them to purchase more licenses
than
machines. Even if the OEM doesn't install the software, they've paid
for
it. Furthermore, they aren't allowed to sell the surplus, and
Microsoft
keeps coming up with new versions each year to keep the OEMs from
stock-piling.
In addition, Microsoft has terms which forbid any modifications of the
software
from the time it's installed to the first time the user boots the
machine.
This often includes any changes to the desktop.
What is remarkable isn't that Microsoft has 95% of the machines sold
installed
with some version of Windows, or even that Microsoft software is
included on
nearly 99% of all laptops, desktops, and corporate workstations. What
is
remarkable is that there are nearly 5% who are willing to go to
extraordinary
lengths to install Linux. Even more remarkable is that OEMs have been
willing
to pay what amounts to 1/2 their potential earnings to help Microsoft
promote
itself. Keep in mind that 80% of the price of Microsoft software is
advertizing and legal fees. I'd rather spend money on advertizing for
MY company than
pay to promote Microsoft. I'd rather not pay Microsoft 1/4 of my
profits
for lawyers whose primary purpose is to limit my rights as much as
possible,
and permit Microsoft to legally invade my privacy, wire-tap my
computer, and
obtain any information which might give them a competitive advantage
in ANY
of their markets - ranging from operating systems to satellite TV,
without
compensating me in any way. I've created designs and posted them to
these
news-groups over 40 times in the last 15 years, and Microsoft has used
nearly
all of the ideas in some form, and yet the only consideration given
was a
night in a very nice hotel, followed by an 18 hour "interview" that
was more
like a high-pressure consulting engagement, only to be told "you don't
have the Microsoft Religion" (Like they couldn't guess that from my
previous
7500 postings?).
> Making something simple and easy to use is something the Linux advocates
> find very hard to understand.
Simple and easy to use is easy. We give you a web server, an HTML
form,
and you can "fill in the form". Keep in mind that you probably spend
nearly 80% of your "net time" interacting with UNIX and Linux servers
using an interface originally developed exclusively for Linux (the
first
Web browser was Viola). Mosaic (aka IE) and Netscape made it possible
for
Millions of Windows users to become UNIX users without having to buy
new
hardware, but would you say that web browsers are easy to use?
Sure, when you have direct access to UNIX via Linux and X11 tools, you
can provide more complex interactions to more closely match the
business
rules of the underlying application - in this case the configuration
rules
for the Linux server - but this doesn't mean that Linux is inferior.
When you consider that you are getting about 20 times the number of
applications
and services for 1/10th the price, it's quite likely that you will
need
to make some choices. You can either choose to ignore the new
goodies,
but that's like asking the 5 year-old kid who has been staring at
Christmas
presents since October not to open them in December. Yes, some of the
presents
need batteries you forgot to buy, others break in a few hours, and
others
become your favorite toys. But which becomes which depends on the
recipient.
To a 2-year old, a diamond ring is "Yummy", and wrapping paper and big
boxes are the big event. To a college kid, almost nothing phases him,
but
if you didn't get him anything, he'd be really upset.
> Users do not want 20 different ways to do the same thing.
You're right! Each user wants the one way that most suits his
personal tastes.
That's why we have 200 different types and styles of automobile in the
U.S.,
and nearly everyone feels that their car is perfect for their
situation.
Even the guy driving the 72 Caddie with no hubcaps knows that this is
the
best he can get for the amount he is willing to spend on a car. Many
millionaires (those with net worth exceeding $1 million) can afford a
Rolls Royce, but drive a much more modest used car.
> Users want the OS to hide the complixity of the machine
> from them. Users want an OS that is easy to configure and manage and use.
Actually, most users would be really happy if the OEMs would configure
the
machine for them. This is why so many people use Windows 9x. They
hate
the operating system, but it was installed when they bought it, and
they
get a custom CD-ROM which includes all the PnP drivers for their
machine
(and possibly a few other of that manufacturers models).
Of course, when it's time to replace the old machine, it's a very
traumatic
experience. They have to back-up everything, get it put onto the new
disk,
and they have to hope they didn't lose the original installation
disks, all
100 of them, that they will need to configure those applications.
> So far, windows is winning in this area, if it were not, it would not
> have 90% market share. (of course, you will blame this on MS marketing,
> right?)
There's really only one way to find out. Let the OEMs install both
Linux
and Windows on every machine they sell over the next two years. Let
the
users select which system they want to boot - and let them select
which one
will be the "default". Let them use both system for about a year.
If Microsoft is radically better, they will still have 95% of the
market in
two years. If people, given the ability to make an informed choice
based on
direct hands-on experience decide they really hate Linux, then Linux
will
still be a 2% machine and users can just format the Linux partition
and
use it as an "E: drive". 40 gig drives are quite common, there's
plenty
of room for both OSes on nearly any modern machine.
Is it really such a terrible thing to let the end user make the
choice?
Until such time as users can make such a choice, any claims that
Microsoft
windows enjoys a 95% market share because of it's vastly superior
technology
is simply a fantasy promoted to protect them from further legal action
in
federal courts.
I respect Microsoft's right to innovate. I don't believe that
Microsoft
should have the EXCLUSIVE right to innovate. I don't believe that
Microsoft
should have the EXCLUSIVE right to benefit from innovation. And I
CERTAINLY
don't believe that Microsoft should have the right to exclusively
benefit
from the innovations of others, while driving the original innovators
out
of the marketplace.
Netscape, WordPerfect, Lotus 1-2-3, Notes, DB2, Oracle, Sybase, Corel
Draw,
IRC, Java, DR-DOS, Stacker, Brief, Borland C++, SideKick, NFS,
NetWare,...
just a few of the nearly 900 products that Microsoft has cloned (often
using
reverse engineered code), and bundled into their standard windows
offering,
to drive the original innovators, and their legitimate competitors,
out
of the market. Many of these companies are actually coming back to
life
in the wide-open Linux market. Many have been quietly playing in the
Solaris
and UNIX market for years as penny stocks. Some of these companies
are
seeing Linux as a market where Microsoft won't be able to exclude them
from the market. This is a fitting week to announce the rising
of the dead.
--
Rex Ballard
It Architect
http://www.open4success.com
==============42ECF1910A505C3F717A5C96
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
name="rballard.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Rex Ballard
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="rballard.vcf"
begin:vcard
n:Ballard;Rex
tel;cell:908-723-4008
tel;work:973-723-4008
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
fn:Rex Ballard
end:vcard
==============42ECF1910A505C3F717A5C96==
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
